In the case of Hays v. Steiger, 1894, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over patent rights for improvements in machinery used to manufacture cigars. The plaintiff, Hays, claimed that he had been granted an extension on his original patent and accused Steiger of infringing upon this extended patent by using similar technology in his own cigar-making machines. However, the defendant argued that Hays' claim was invalid because he did not invent any new or useful improvement but merely applied old methods to a different subject matter which does not qualify for a patent under U.S law. The court ruled in favor of Steiger stating that while it is possible to obtain patents for applying known processes to new subjects if they produce new and useful results; however, such was not the case here as there were no novel results produced from applying old methods onto cigar making machine - hence no valid grounds existed for granting an extension on Hay's initial patent.

In the dissenting opinion for Hays v. Steiger, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider and apply principles of equity. The dissenting justices believed that the plaintiff had a clear right to relief due to infringement on his patent rights by the defendant, who continued manufacturing despite being aware of this violation. They contended that an injunction should have been granted as per usual practice in such cases where there is a clear violation of property rights without any valid defense or justification from infringer’s side. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority's view about potential financial loss for defendant if injunction were granted; arguing instead that protection of legal rights should not be compromised because one party might suffer monetary damages as result thereof.